Evaluation of Nurse-Led and Student-Led Community-Based Clinics: A Scoping Review.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Edward W Li, Riana Alli, Christine Dennis, Rebecca Pereira, Heidi M Siu
{"title":"Evaluation of Nurse-Led and Student-Led Community-Based Clinics: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Edward W Li, Riana Alli, Christine Dennis, Rebecca Pereira, Heidi M Siu","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To synthesize approaches used to evaluate nurse-led clinics (NLCs) and student-led clinics (SLCs) delivering community-based primary healthcare.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A scoping review based on Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review included articles evaluating the impact of NLCs and SLCs, published between 2013 and 2023. The Quadruple Aim Framework for health systems quality improvement was a reference point for thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>CINAHL Complete, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, PubMed, Scopus, Health Systems Evidence, Ovid Emcare and grey literature repositories were searched in March-June 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded a total of 891 articles and 43 articles were included in this scoping review. Diverse quantitative and qualitative methods and concepts of interest were evident in the evaluations of NLCs (n = 15), medical SLCs (n = 15) and interprofessional SLCs (n = 13). Extracted data spoke to the evaluation of either client experience, health of communities, systems of care delivery or provider experience, with systems of care delivery being the most consistently evaluated domain across all clinic types.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Traditional and non-traditional evaluation measures spanning the Quadruple Aim Framework were used to study community-based NLCs and SLCs. Opportunities remain for broadening the range of indicators and methods used to capture clinic impact on health equity.</p><p><strong>Implications for the profession and/or patient care: </strong>Numerous transferable research approaches are available to students and clinical professionals for supporting the design and iterative improvement of innovative primary healthcare clinics.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>The results highlight ways in which NLCs and SLCs may be evaluated for their concurrent impact on healthcare service delivery and clinical education systems.</p><p><strong>Reporting method: </strong>PRISMA-ScR.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>Feedback amassed during presentations to nursing audiences informed the enclosed discussion points.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Review protocol was published with the Open Science Framework under ID 10.17605/OSF.IO/FP6S4.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17791","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To synthesize approaches used to evaluate nurse-led clinics (NLCs) and student-led clinics (SLCs) delivering community-based primary healthcare.

Design: A scoping review based on Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines.

Methods: This review included articles evaluating the impact of NLCs and SLCs, published between 2013 and 2023. The Quadruple Aim Framework for health systems quality improvement was a reference point for thematic analysis.

Data sources: CINAHL Complete, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, PubMed, Scopus, Health Systems Evidence, Ovid Emcare and grey literature repositories were searched in March-June 2023.

Results: Our search yielded a total of 891 articles and 43 articles were included in this scoping review. Diverse quantitative and qualitative methods and concepts of interest were evident in the evaluations of NLCs (n = 15), medical SLCs (n = 15) and interprofessional SLCs (n = 13). Extracted data spoke to the evaluation of either client experience, health of communities, systems of care delivery or provider experience, with systems of care delivery being the most consistently evaluated domain across all clinic types.

Conclusion: Traditional and non-traditional evaluation measures spanning the Quadruple Aim Framework were used to study community-based NLCs and SLCs. Opportunities remain for broadening the range of indicators and methods used to capture clinic impact on health equity.

Implications for the profession and/or patient care: Numerous transferable research approaches are available to students and clinical professionals for supporting the design and iterative improvement of innovative primary healthcare clinics.

Impact: The results highlight ways in which NLCs and SLCs may be evaluated for their concurrent impact on healthcare service delivery and clinical education systems.

Reporting method: PRISMA-ScR.

Patient or public contribution: Feedback amassed during presentations to nursing audiences informed the enclosed discussion points.

Trial registration: Review protocol was published with the Open Science Framework under ID 10.17605/OSF.IO/FP6S4.

评估护士主导和学生主导的社区诊所:范围审查。
目的:综合评估护士主导诊所(NLCs)和学生主导诊所(SLCs)提供社区初级卫生保健的方法。设计:基于乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)指导方针的范围审查。方法:本综述纳入了2013年至2023年间发表的评价NLCs和SLCs影响的文章。改善卫生系统质量的四项目标框架是专题分析的参考点。数据来源:检索于2023年3 - 6月的CINAHL Complete、ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health、PubMed、Scopus、Health Systems Evidence、Ovid Emcare和灰色文献库。结果:我们的检索共产生891篇文章,其中43篇文章被纳入本范围综述。在NLCs (n = 15)、医学SLCs (n = 15)和跨专业SLCs (n = 13)的评估中,可以明显看到不同的定量和定性方法和感兴趣的概念。提取的数据涉及客户体验、社区健康、医疗服务系统或提供者经验的评估,其中医疗服务系统是所有诊所类型中最一致的评估领域。结论:基于四目标框架的传统和非传统评价方法对社区非语言细胞和语言细胞进行了研究。仍然有机会扩大用于衡量诊所对卫生公平影响的指标和方法的范围。对专业和/或患者护理的影响:许多可转移的研究方法可供学生和临床专业人员使用,以支持创新初级卫生保健诊所的设计和迭代改进。影响:研究结果强调了评估NLCs和SLCs对医疗服务提供和临床教育系统的影响的方法。报告方法:PRISMA-ScR。患者或公众贡献:在护理听众的演讲中收集的反馈通知了封闭的讨论点。试验注册:审查方案在开放科学框架上发布,ID为10.17605/OSF.IO/FP6S4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice. JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice. We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信